Institutional dashboards on clinical trial transparency for University Medical Centers: A case study
Authors: Delwen L. Franzen, Benjamin Gregory Carlisle, Maia Salholz-Hillel, Nico Riedel, Daniel Strech
Journal: PLoS Medicine (2023)

Background University Medical Centers (UMCs) must do their part for clinical trial transparency by fostering practices such as prospective registration, timely results reporting, and open access. However, research institutions are often unaware of their performance on these practices. Baseline assessments of these practices would highlight where there is room for change and empower UMCs to support improvement. We performed a status quo analysis of established clinical trial registration and reporting practices at German UMCs and developed a dashboard to communicate these baseline assessments with UMC leadership and the wider research community. Methods and findings We developed and applied a semiautomated approach to assess adherence to established transparency practices in a cohort of interventional trials and associated results publications. Trials were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov or the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS), led by a German UMC, and reported as complete between 2009 and 2017. To assess adherence to transparency practices, we identified results publications associated to trials and applied automated methods at the level of registry data (e.g., prospective registration) and publications (e.g., open access). We also obtained summary results reporting rates of due trials registered in the EU Clinical Trials Register (EUCTR) and conducted at German UMCs from the EU Trials Tracker. We developed an interactive dashboard to display these results across all UMCs and at the level of single UMCs. Our study included and assessed 2,895 interventional trials led by 35 German UMCs. Across all UMCs, prospective registration increased from 33% ( n = 58/178) to 75% ( n = 144/193) for trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and from 0% ( n = 0/44) to 79% ( n = 19/24) for trials registered in DRKS over the period considered. Of trials with a results publication, 38% ( n = 714/1,895) reported the trial registration number in the publication abstract. In turn, 58% ( n = 861/1,493) of trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and 23% ( n = 111/474) of trials registered in DRKS linked the publication in the registration. In contrast to recent increases in summary results reporting of drug trials in the EUCTR, 8% ( n = 191/2,253) and 3% ( n = 20/642) of due trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and DRKS, respectively, had summary results in the registry. Across trial completion years, timely results reporting (within 2 years of trial completion) as a manuscript publication or as summary results was 41% ( n = 1,198/2,892). The proportion of openly accessible trial publications steadily increased from 42% ( n = 16/38) to 74% ( n = 72/97) over the period considered. A limitation of this study is that some of the methods used to assess the transparency practices in this dashboard rely on registry data being accurate and up-to-date. Conclusions In this study, we observed that it is feasible to assess and inform individual UMCs on their performance on clinical trial transparency in a reproducible and publicly accessible way. Beyond helping institutions assess how they perform in relation to mandates or their institutional policy, the dashboard may inform interventions to increase the uptake of clinical transparency practices and serve to evaluate the impact of these interventions.